Jan 2009 Geog Investigation Mark Scheme

Mark Scheme January 2009

GCE

GCE Geography (6GE02)

Edexcel Limited. Registered in England and Wales No. 4496750
Registered Office: One90 High Holborn, London WC1V 7BH

Edexcel is one of the leading examining and awarding bodies in the UK and
throughout the world. We provide a wide range of qualifications including academic,
vocational, occupational and specific programmes for employers. Through a network
of UK and overseas offices, Edexcel’s centres receive the support they need to help
them deliver their education and training programmes to learners.
For further information please call our Customer Services on + 44 1204 770 696, or
visit our website at or visit our website at www.edexcel.com.

If you have any subject specific questions about the content of this Mark Scheme that
require the help of a subject specialist, you may find our Ask The Expert email
service helpful.
Ask The Expert can be accessed online at the following link:
http://www.edexcel.com/Aboutus/contact-us/Pages/home.aspx

January 2009
Publications Code UA020904

All the material in this publication is copyright

© Edexcel Ltd 2009

6GE02 Mark Scheme

Question Number Question
1(a) Describe the characteristics and tracks of the two storms.
QWC (i, ii, iii)
Series Indicative content
Ivan Jeanne
Characteristics Few deaths despite high Greatest number of deaths, although
intensity Cat 5 storm. Much of only tropical storm strength.
the high intensity hurricane Secondary problems of floods and
activity was over the sea. landslides (caused by high rainfall)
Predictably lost lots of its are indicated on the resource.
energy on landfall. Relatively slow.
122 deaths 3000 deaths
Damage $21 billion $7.6 billion damages
Tracks A more westerly track An easterly track, doing an unusual
compared to Jeanne. Also loop-the-loop sequence. This may
looped the loop. Travelled over have may it harder to predict and
sea long time before striking evacuate.
landfall. May have made Shorter overall track than Ivan, but
prediction easier. more power over land
Level Mark Descriptor
Level 1 1-4 Basic use of diagram only with one or two descriptive lift-offs only. Lacks
structure and depth. Considerable errors in language.
Level 2 5-7 Describes some of the characteristics and track for both storms / one storm in
depth. May be unbalanced. Some structure, and some written language
errors.
Level 3 8-10 A clear response with effective use of resource and data. Describes
characteristics and tracks for both storms. Structured and balanced response.
Written language errors are rare.

8GE01 GCE Geography 19
0901

1(b) Describe the fieldwork and research you would undertake in order to
QWC (i, ii, iii) investigate changing weather conditions.
• Observation of changing weather conditions can conducted over different time periods, e.g. few
days to look at changes associated with a depression, or over 1 term / even a year. Expect
students to discuss weather diaries which can take a mixture of forms, e.g. e-diary (on web),
written notes, video / pictures.
• Expect many candidates to record changes in air masses, weather systems, anticyclones etc and
link to synoptic conditions.
• Some candidates may also recognise that the most reliable records involve the use of a range of
techniques and research opportunities. Data could also be pooled as a group.

Fieldwork Use of various local weather instruments, e.g.
(primary): anemometer, thermometer, whirling psychrometer, rain
gauges etc. Also more qualitative observations, e.g.
changes in cloud cover, what it ‘feels’ like, whether the
heating is required, seeing starts at night.
Research Use of various sources to get a picture of weather –
(secondary): websites, newspapers, blogs / forums etc.
The best responses will provide detailed evidence of
specific sources, e.g. specialist weather websites etc,
rather than ‘the internet’.

Note: It is important to distinguish which fieldwork and research is relevant to weather and which is
not (e.g. rivers / flooding, land use etc).
Always credit relevant descriptions of fieldwork (including virtual) from both UK and overseas
locations.
Level 1 1-4 Very limited range of fieldwork / research described. Fieldwork may be not
appropriate to weather studies. Lacks structure. Considerable errors in
language.
Level 2 5-8 Descriptive style but with some statements about either fieldwork or research
approaches linked to weather. May be a description that lacks focus on the
question / less relevant techniques. Likely to be unbalanced and lacking
detail. Expect limited use of geographical terminology. There are some
written language errors.
Level 3 9-12 Describes a range of fieldwork and/or research approaches linked to weather,
but may lack balance. Some use of geographical terminology. Response shows
some structure, limited written language errors.
Max 10 if only fieldwork or research.
Level 4 13-15 Structured account which describes a balanced range of personal weather
fieldwork and research techniques in detail; shows good use of own / group
fieldwork, with good use of terminology. Written language errors are rare.

0901

1(c) For ONE extreme weather event describe the methods of management used
QWC (i, ii, iii) and comment on their effectiveness.
Candidates may choose from a range of extreme weather events – hurricanes, river floods, tornado,
heatwave, or drought.

Detail of management strategies will depend on choice of event and location e.g. Levees /
evacuation / preparedness linked to hurricane Katrina, land use zoning related to river flooding,
warnings and shelter for tornadoes, emergency water management for droughts or longer term
water management in preparation for drought.

• Some candiadtes may describe top-down vs bottom up or the role of community preparedness /
participation and education.
• Some responses may consider factors, i.e. which are more important, rather than a decsription
of different types of approach.
• Credit reference to own fieldwork and research.
Level 1 1-4 Extreme weather event may not be identified. Basic, generalised points that
lack focus on management; may focus on impacts of extreme weather event.
Lacks structure; very limited use of geographical terminology. Considerable
errors in language.
Level 2 5-7 Some management methods identified for an extreme weather event, with
some description and occasional comment. Some structure. Likely to be
unbalanced. Some written language errors.
Level 3 8-10 Detailed description of management methods linked to extreme weather event
with some comments on their effectiveness. Well structured and balanced
response. Written language errors are rare.

0901

2(a) Describe the physical and human features of the coast shown in the
QWC (i, ii, iii) photograph.
The photo reveals a range of features:

Physical Human
• Spit / bar /tombolo • Groynes on beaches (to build up
• Beaches / cliffs sand and reduce impact of LSD)
• Natural habour / bay for shelter • Port
• Sand dune ecosystems / • Settlement in distance /urban
saltmarsh • New shoreline homes / hotels
• Various sand banks / mud flats built
and shallow (safe) water. • Road leading to ferry; ferries /
• Woodland near coast and scrub in boats
foreground, e.g. gorse etc. • Footpaths in dunes / coastal
areas

Some candidates may attempt to recognise scale of different features, e.g. length of spit /
tombolo; also identify the importance of deposition also this stretch of coast.
Structure likely to be physical and human elements or geographical approach e.g.
foreground/background/along shoreline, etc
Remember that the question requires description, so do not overly credit explanation.

Level 1 1-4 Lacks structure, limited range of features described; lacks accuracy and
limited use of geographical terminology. Considerable errors in language.

Level 2 5-7 Some range of features described with some accuracy, physical and/or
human, but may be unbalanced. Some structure. Some written language
errors.
Level 3 8-10 A detailed, accurate description with effective use of resource across a range
of both physical and human features. Well structured good, use of correct
terminology to identify features. Written language errors are rare.

0901

2(b) Describe the fieldwork and research you would undertake in order to
QWC (i, ii, iii) investigate changes in coastal land use over time.
There are a range of fieldwork opportunities – expect these to include:

Fieldwork Create land use map and compare to historic plans; speaking to
(primary): residents and visitors (questionnaires / structured interviews),
oral histories, footfalls, parking etc. Use of video or
transcripts to record ideas (could be group approach). Rates of
erosion if linked to landuse change (could be secondary too).
Research Historic maps to illustrate change, e.g. www.old-maps.co.uk ;
(secondary): also local newspapers, blogs / forums etc. Old photographs
and post cards may be a useful source (again could be internet
sourced). Possible use of GIS / electronic maps / satellite
images to illustrate change.
The best responses will provide detailed evidence of specific
sources, e.g. specialist local historical websites etc, rather
than ‘the internet’ .

• Provide credit for possible reference to sampling strategies, e.g. systematic and stratified,
no of people etc; also some candidates may have used a pilot survey, e.g. to format
questionnaires.
• Also credit more detailed description of land use map categories and justification for this.
• Allow liberal interpretation of ‘over time’, i.e. 150 years to 5 years (e.g. for a recent
regeneration strategy at coastal town).
Important to distinguish which fieldwork and research is relevant to coastal land use and which is
not (e.g. beach processes, sand dune surveys, costal defences etc)
Always credit relevant descriptions of fieldwork (including virtual) from both UK and overseas
locations.
appropriate to coastal landuse. Lacks structure. Considerable errors in
language.
approaches linked to coastal landuse. May be a description that lacks focus on
the question / less relevant techniques. Likely to be unbalanced and lacking
detail. Expect limited use of geographical terminology. There are some
Level 3 9-12 Describes a range of fieldwork and/or research approaches linked to coastal
landuse, but may lack balance. Some use of geographical terminology.
Response shows some structure, limited written language errors.
Level 4 13-15 Structured account which describes a balanced range of coastal landuse
fieldwork and research techniques in detail; appreciates the time dimension,
shows good use of own / group fieldwork, with good use of terminology.

0901

2(c) Using examples, explain why the methods of coastal management vary from
QWC (i, ii, iii) place to place.
Four coastal management options are available to decision makers:
Do nothing, Retreat, Hold the line, Advance the line.
Decisions are largely based on: land use cost-benefit (land use may be integral to this),
environmental impact assessment (EIA), feasibility studies and risk assessment.
• In general places with high land values would expect to be protected, often by hard
defences. This is largely due to presence of economic development and/or dense population.
• In contrast, little protection is offered in places where farmland, few resources, sparse
population and limited finance are found.
• ‘Value’ may alternatively be environmental, eg ecosystems, heritage, etc and here
softer/sustainable methods might be appropriate.
• Other natural factors such as geology, relief, coastal processes, etc may be relevant in
decisions.
Expect some reference to SMP’s and ICZM; role of Environment Agency or local authority
partnerships.
Best responses will tend to describe defence methods with little exemplification while the best will
provide explanation and fuller exemplification
Credit reference to own fieldwork / case studies which have linkage.
• NB Examples could be location or types of coastal management
• Max 7 for a response with only 1 type in 1 location.
Level 1 1-4 Describes some management options / defences. Lacks structure and very
limited use of geographical terminology. Limited or no reference to an
examples. Considerable errors in language.
Level 2 5-7 Some methods identified to support ideas about management options, with
some explanation. Some structure. Likely to be unbalanced. There are some
Level 3 8-10 A clear, exemplified, explanation of why coastal management methods vary
‘from place to place’. Well structured and balanced response which uses
examples effectively. Written language errors are rare.

0901

3(a) Describe the fieldwork and research you would undertake in order to
QWC (i, ii, iii) investigate economic and social inequality in an urban area.

There are a wide range of fieldwork and research activities linked to both economic and social
inequality.

Primary Range of environmental quality surveys (e.g. landscape,
data street quality etc). These are surrogate indicators for both
economic and social inequality. Questionnaires, oral
histories, extended interviews etc may also be relevant.
Opportunity for mobility / accessibility maps, clone town
surveys; graffiti assessment, litter etc. Transport data (could
also be secondary)
Secondary Use the internet to research ‘geo-demographic’ data (e.g.
research: Acorn and Cameo profiles), socio-economic profiles from
census (National Statistics). Also geo-located pictures to help
with inequality e.g. Flickr, Panoramio, Geograph etc.
May also use VOA website to further pursue shopping
inequality etc.

Provide credit for possible reference to sampling strategies, e.g. systematic and stratified, no of
people etc; also some candidates may have used a pilot survey, e.g. to format questionnaires.
Credit good distinction between economic and social inequality, although there is overalp between
technqiues. Ecocomic more likley to be focused on research rather than field-based techniques.
• Also credit candidates who indicate that quality surveys have been pre-calibrated or
customised to improve their reliability.
• Always credit relevant descriptions of fieldwork (including virtual) from both UK and
overseas locations.
• If rubric, credit generally applicable concepts and techniques up to Max 6.
• Reward candidates who link to a specfic location where they have collected information.
appropriate to investigating inequality. Lacks structure. Considerable errors
in language.
approaches linked to inequality a description that lacks focus on the question
/ less relevant techniques. Likely to be unbalanced and lacking detail. Expect
limited use of geographical terminology. There are some written language
errors.
Level 3 9-12 Describes a range of fieldwork and/or research approaches linked to
inequality, but may lack balance. Some use of geographical terminology.
Level 4 13-15 Structured account which describes a balanced range of fieldwork and
research techniques to measure inequality in detail; appreciates the economic
and social dimension, shows good use of own / group fieldwork, with good use
of terminology. Written language errors are rare.

0901

3(b) Study Figure 3 which shows part of a student’s investigation of deprivation
QWC (i, ii, iii) and environmental quality in a city.
Comment on the limitations of the data collection and presentation
techniques.

Data collection limitations:
• Interupted transect every 50m may mean data was missed
• Criteria for deprivation ommitted education and housing which is very important social data
• No pre-calibration of EQ scoring system
• Data only collcetd in am
• Rain may have affected quality scores (influencing judgements)
• Transect misses data on either side of road
Data presentation limitations:
• Generally graph is confusing / low usability
• Difficulty of interpreation of deprivation index and quality graphs
• No units on X axis to indicate distance (although included in title)
• Line graph may be technically incorrect to display quality data (not-continuous)
• Scales confusing on graph – index of deprivation 6 good or bad?
• Location of transect in relation to city not indicated on any type of map

Accept any reasonable ideas.
Credit reference to ways the data collection / presentation could be improved.

Level 1 1-4 One or two superficial criticisms/ limitations of the ‘it was raining’ variety.
Lacks structure and very limited use of geographical terminology. Expect
considerable errors in language.
Level 2 5-7 Some comment on either data collection / presentation, unbalanced and
lacking detail. Shows some structure. There are some written language
errors.
Level 3 8-10 A clear response with valid comments on collection and presentation.
Structured, good use of geographical terminology. Written language errors are
rare.

0901

3(c) For one named rural or urban area, explain why it is difficult to reduce
QWC (i, ii, iii) deprivation
Deprivation is a lack of access to services / amenities / opportunities considered the norm in a
society. The very nature and causes of deprivation are an explanation for why the problem is
difficult to solve.

There are a number of potential difficulties:
Rural Urban
• Loss of traditional employment • May be a culture of deprivation
sources, e.g. farming / fishing which is difficult to overcome.
• Deprivation may be ‘hidden’ in • Historic cycle of poverty /
rural areas (e.g. no graffiti, litter deprivation, e.g. caused by de-
etc). industrialisation – unemployment
• Lack of rural employment etc.
opportunity, e.g. limited new • Uneven distribution of resources
business start-up grants. and power.
• New technologies may not be • Social barriers, e.g. age, income,
available / realistic to some disability, religion, culture etc.
remote communities.
• Rural people may have less
‘voice’ / political sway or
interest.
• Inaccessibility / isolation

May also be some generic limitations, e.g. lack of community enthusiasm / push, lack of local or
central government funding priority, lack of technology etc. May also be physical factors, e.g.,
rivers, roads, relief etc. Accept any reasonable ideas.
• Can be LEDC / overseas, but expect more UK example(s).
• If urban and rural are both tackled, mark both and credit the best.
Level 1 1-4 Identifies one or two difficulties only; no / limited reference to location. May
alternatively describe what deprivation is. Little structure and very limited
use of geographical terminology. Considerable errors in language.
Level 2 5-7 Identifies some difficulties with some explanations linked to the nature of
deprivation; reference to a named location. Some structure. There are some
Level 3 8-10 A structured account which considers difficulties for a location, with some
supporting detail and explanations. Well structured and balanced response.

0901

4(a) Describe the fieldwork and research you would undertake in order to
QWC (i, ii, iii) investigate why some urban areas are in need of rebranding.
Urban can include town / city OR coastal, former coal mining area etc. Give urban a wide
interpretation.
There are a wide range of fieldlwork and research activities -
Primary Field notes, field sketches, photographs, extended
data interviews, focus groups, customised ‘placecheck form’. Also
questionnaires, retail / shopping quality, footfall / pedestrian
count and other personalised environmental quality
assessments, litter survey, graffiti assessment etc
Secondary Use the internet to research ‘geo-demographic’ data (e.g.
research: Acorn and Cameo profiles), socio-economic profiles from
census (National Statistics). Also geo-located pictures to help
with place identity e.g. Flickr, Panoramio, Geograph etc.
May also use VOA website to further pursue shopping quality
etc.

Provide credit for possible reference to sampling strategies, e.g. systematic and stratified, no. of
people etc; also some candidates may have used a pilot survey, e.g. to format questionnaires.
Credit good distinction between fieldwork and research, although there is likely overalp between
approaches.
• Also credit candidates who indicate that quality surveys have been pre-calibrated or
customised to improve their reliability.
• Always credit relevant descriptions of fieldwork (including virtual) from both UK and
overseas locations.
• If rubric, credit generally applicable concepts and techniques up to Max 6.
appropriate to investigating the need to rebrand. Lacks structure.
Considerable errors in language.
approaches linked to the need to rebrand; lacks focus on the question / less
relevant techniques. Likely to be unbalanced and lacking detail. Expect
limited use of geographical terminology. There are some written language
errors.
Level 3 9-12 Describes a range of fieldwork and/or research approaches linked to the need
to rebrand, but may lack balance. Some use of geographical terminology.
Level 4 13-15 Structured account which describes a balanced range of fieldwork and
research techniques to determine the need to rebrand in detail, shows good
use of own / group fieldwork, with good use of terminology. Written language
errors are rare.

0901

4(b) Study Figure 4 which shows some of the results from a students’ investigation
QWC (i, ii, iii) of a coastal town in south-west England.
Comment on the limitations of the data collection and presentation
techniques.

Data collection limitations:
• Central postcode not identified
• Postcode checkers are very generalised having large spatial area. Reliability issues.
• Postcode checkers only reveal certain types of data about people – can be missleading.
• Limited range of websites used to collect research information. No use of census / local
authority data etc which may be more reliable / detailed
• Blogs attract people who ‚like to have a rant’ – therefore likely biased.
• Photos are inherently biased – can easily show good or bad, depending on photographer

Data presentation limitations:
• Photographs not located onto any type of base map
• Photos could be eaily annotated to improve visual appeal
• No graphing up of any information, e.g. upmystreet data which could easily be done
• Annotation / interpretaion / highlighhting of blogs data would mek it more meaningful

Accept any reasonable ideas.

Level 1 1-4 One or two superficial criticisms/ limitations e.g. photos too small / not
labelled. Lacks structure and very limited use of geographical terminology.
Expect considerable errors in language.
Level 2 5-7 Some comment on either data collection / presentation, unbalanced and
lacking detail. Shows some structure. There are some written language
errors.
Level 3 8-10 A clear response with valid comments on collection and presentation.
Structured, good use of geographical terminology. Written language errors are
rare.

0901

4(c) With reference to examples, examine the role of different ‘players’ involved
QWC (i, ii, iii) in the rebranding process.
Players are really stakeholders, i.e. are individuals, groups or organisations who have an interest in
the development or outcomes of a particular project. They are interested parties as they may be
involved financially or emotionally as the development is within a neighbourhood close to where
they live.
Depending on projects / examples chosen there could be a number of stakeholders – ‘bigger players’
examples can include:
Urban Rural
The Arts Council offers various European Union , e.g. Objective 1
funding opportunities for arts linked programme and LEADER programme
projects.
English Partnerships - principle aim Action with Communities in Rural
is to 'deliver high quality sustainable England, or ACRE promotes local
growth in England’. rural initiatives
Advantage West Midlands – Natural England – grants to farmers
Development Agency for various agri-environmental
schemes.

Also Regional Development Agencies (can be both urban and rural); heritage Lottery Fund (HLF), Big
Lottery Fund.
Could also be local small-scale / bottom-up / community groups acting as stakeholders. Huge range
of possibilities here.
May also have mention of the important of ‘partnership’ working.
Examples can be places, players or strategies.
Level 1 1-4 Identifies one or two players only, with a few generalised ideas. Little
structure and very limited use of geographical terminology. Considerable
errors in language.
Level 2 5-7 Identifies some players with some details and support. Some structure. Likely
to be unbalanced. There are some written language errors.

Level 3 8-10 A structured account which examines the role of different players with sound
supporting detail: balanced response. Written language errors are rare.

0901

Jan 2009 Geog Investigation Mark Scheme

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to Jan 2009 Geog Investigation Mark Scheme

More from Harpal Bains

Recently uploaded

Jan 2009 Geog Investigation Mark Scheme